Matt Zimmerman wrote: > I see no need to argue about whether Ubuntu should push; the patches > are all there in an easily accessible tree, and it would be trivial to > pull the patches and push them someplace else if that's desirable. Please take a look at the current Ubuntu 1.6 MB diff for base-config (the split diffs are useless in this case), and tell me how you consider this to be "easily accessible". There are some base-config improvements in here that could benefit others, or at least other derived distros, such as making it only expect one CD, but not done in a generic or reusable way and they're all mashed up with tons of Ubuntu specific hacks. For what it's worth, I've completly given up on separating the parts that are applicable to Debian from the parts that aren't. I have some hope that Colin will manage to merge some of it into the Debian package, since he's been doing a lot of work on merging in Ubuntu's changes to d-i, but if that doesn't happen soon, Ubuntu will be left with this massive patch to forward port as I make huge planned changes to base-config post-sarge. If Debian treated our upstreams this way, I'd be suprised if we ever got any patches accepted upstream. > remain in debbugs months later without comment from the maintainer: http://people.ubuntu.com/~scott/patches/ > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=298060 Submitted 4 March of this year, comment by maintainer next day. Obviously impossible to merge $RANDOM_GRATUITIOUS_CHANGE_TO_BASE_PACKAGE into Debian during the sarge freeze. > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=298064 Would be nice. (To answer the thread leader, I consider Ubuntu to be more and more of a fork and less and less a derivative distribution. If Ubuntu doesn't start to re-converge with Debian significantly after sarge is released, and we end up with two sets of X.org packaging, etc, then I will give up and just consider it purely a fork.) -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature